It's almost like when there is no clear cut winner for the MVP, other non-stat factors come into play. Factors such as service time, playing history, whether or not the team made the playoffs, writer bias due to location to other MVP candidates, size of the media markets the players play in, and historic ramifications of the stats in question.

The problem with sabermetrics people is that all those factors can't be quantified into a number they can put into a formula.

WTF Indeed:It's almost like when there is no clear cut winner for the MVP, other non-stat factors come into play. Factors such as service time, playing history, whether or not the team made the playoffs, writer bias due to location to other MVP candidates, size of the media markets the players play in, and historic ramifications of the stats in question.

The problem with sabermetrics people is that all those factors can't be quantified into a number they can put into a formula.

Forget the writer bias, I'm going to talk why Trout *should* win as opposed to whether he *will*. And here's the thing...even taking out WAR and the sabermetric stuff you can still make a pretty clear-cut case for Trout. And I'll do it while only mentioning Trout missing a month once.

First, let's take out the washes: Both have about the same BA and OBP. Cabrera leads the league in double plays grounded into, which more or less negates the fact that Trout strikes out more. Cabrera's much higher in RBI's and Trout's much higher in runs so I'd say that about cancels each other out. And both of those can be attributed to where they bat in the lineup more than anything else.

Now to where there are differences: Cabrera has a more home runs, but Trout still has 30 despite missing a month. I don't think giving Trout mid-high 30's assuming a full season is a stretch, which isn't *that* far behind. Cabrera's SLG is about 40 points higher, which is decent but not overwhelming. Then you look at steals and speed, where Trout is just ridiculously better. Now defense, which does count if Jimmy Rollins won in '07 and Ichiro won in '01: Throwing out all the stats you can come up with, I don't think that many people are going to argue with the notion that Cabrera is a below-average 3B while Trout is a far-above-average CF. Cabrera also did better down the stretch, but I don't buy into the notion that games in June count for any less than games in September. Mainly because they don't.

So basically, Trout's individual advantages are bigger than Cabrera's. Which brings us to the playoff argument. And I'll repeat myself from yesterday: Despite facing better competition in the AL West than the Tigers did in the AL Central, the Angels finished with more wins than the Tigers. It's not the Trout's fault that his team happened to be included in the wrong grouping of teams, and Cabrera similarly should not be entitled to a bonus because of it.

So there you go. I'm not going to be upset if/when Cabrera wins because he had a great year, but there's more than one reason why Trout should win.

Morosi makes the argument that Cabrera deserves credit for his defense because he was willing to make the move to third base to accommodate the acquisition of Prince Fielder. His hard work and selflessness in changing positions should be seen as a net positive in terms of defensive contribution, even if he is objectively bad at playing the position. However, there's a pretty serious problem with this scenario - Cabrera didn't have to move to third base for the Tigers to sign Prince Fielder. Instead, he could have simply agreed to become a designated hitter. Instead, Cabrera decided he didn't want to retire his glove and become a hitter-only, so the Tigers were instead forced to move him to third base, since neither Cabrera nor Fielder was willing to take the DH role at this point in their career.

I don't know if this is an example of someone who just doesn't follow the Tigers closely or just a bare assertion, but this statement is patently false.

The Tigers weren't "forced" to move Cabrera to 3rd base nor did Cabrera "refuse" to become a DH. The reason Cabrera was moved to 3rd base was because, for better or worse, that's where he's going to be playing as long as Victor Martinez is under contract. Following major reconstructive knee surgery at his age, there is no way Martinez is ever going to catch again. He'll DH and get some spot starts at 1st the rest of his career. Therefore, Cabrera and Fielder are going to be position players through 2014. This has nothing to do with some petulant refusal to DH by either Cabrera or Fielder. That option was never on the board in the first place.

In reality, Cabrera's switch to third base made room not for Fielder, but for Delmon Young to spend a majority of his time at DH, which freed up an outfield spot for the likes of Ryan Raburn, Don Kelly, Quinton Berry, and Andy Dirks. Had Cabrera been willing to actually take one for the team and DH, those are the guys who would have lost playing time, not Prince Fielder. Does anyone seriously want to argue that the Tigers are better off because Cabrera decided to become a bad defensive third baseman so that that group could get more playing time?

Again, this is either deliberately misleading or just the result of someone who didn't follow the team closely this year. As stated above, the idea that Cabrera should've "taken one for the team and become DH" is ridiculous, because that was never an option in the first place.

Also, as much as I hate Delmon Young with the burning fire of 1,000 suns, the idea that it was a bad thing to move him into the DH spot is insane. He's one of the worst fielding outfielders in baseball. The option then, according to this guy's argument, was to put Cabrera at DH, Young in LF, and Brandon F*cking Inge at 3rd? How does that help the team? I guarantee you they don't make the playoffs this year with that sh*tstorm of a left side. Quintin Berry ended up getting a good portion of starts in LF, and he's an excellent defender who made probably a half dozen game-saving plays this year.

The part about Prince Fielder "losing playing time" as a result of Cabrera not moving to DH is particularly vexing, unless I'm reading it wrong. Prince Fielder has played in all 161 games this year. How is that "losing playing time?"

sigdiamond2000:The part about Prince Fielder "losing playing time" as a result of Cabrera not moving to DH is particularly vexing, unless I'm reading it wrong. Prince Fielder has played in all 161 games this year. How is that "losing playing time?"

I think what they're saying is that Fielder would have played whether or not Cabrera changed to 3B, so Cabrera's position switch actually opened up a spot in the lineup for one of the other guys rather than Fielder. I'm not sure if anybody's actually arguing otherwise, but they're not wrong.

FreakinB:sigdiamond2000: The part about Prince Fielder "losing playing time" as a result of Cabrera not moving to DH is particularly vexing, unless I'm reading it wrong. Prince Fielder has played in all 161 games this year. How is that "losing playing time?"

I think what they're saying is that Fielder would have played whether or not Cabrera changed to 3B, so Cabrera's position switch actually opened up a spot in the lineup for one of the other guys rather than Fielder. I'm not sure if anybody's actually arguing otherwise, but they're not wrong.

They are wrong, because the Tigers are on record (I believe) as saying they would not have bothered signing Fielder had Cabrera not agreed to move to 3rd.

wxboy:FreakinB: sigdiamond2000: The part about Prince Fielder "losing playing time" as a result of Cabrera not moving to DH is particularly vexing, unless I'm reading it wrong. Prince Fielder has played in all 161 games this year. How is that "losing playing time?"

I think what they're saying is that Fielder would have played whether or not Cabrera changed to 3B, so Cabrera's position switch actually opened up a spot in the lineup for one of the other guys rather than Fielder. I'm not sure if anybody's actually arguing otherwise, but they're not wrong.

They are wrong, because the Tigers are on record (I believe) as saying they would not have bothered signing Fielder had Cabrera not agreed to move to 3rd.

Just found this via the Googlez so you're right. My bad. That said, I don't think that should factor into an MVP vote since it has more to do with roster construction than how he actually performed on the field. YMMV.

Because I know most of this got said in the last thread, I'll just summarize my position.

Given the intangibles involved of being the catalyst for that Angels lineup to get their collective heads out of their asses after April and come back to be this team, I'd give it to Trout, but ONLY if the Triple Crown doesn't happen. You can say they haven't been as good as they have been and all that, but it's still Detroit.

AliceBToklasLives:whistleridge: And he's doing it without PEDs either. You would think baseball would be all over this, to try and wash the bad taste of the late 90's/early 00's out of everyone's mouth.

FreakinB:If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, it would be the first time in history that a Triple Crown winner didn't lead his league in WAR.

See, people?! They're not completely at odds! We can all be friends!

/Kum-ba-yaaaaaa

I believe that is true, but that there were two ties by fWAR and one by rWAR...or maybe the other way around. I don't know I'm still boycotting.

The short version of why that's true is because HR were so much rarer that if you led the league in THEM, you were probably pretty close to the top anyway. Add in leading in average (meaning you probably led in OBP as well, as walks were frowned upon), and, well...

WTF Indeed:It's almost like when there is no clear cut winner for the MVP, other non-stat factors come into play. Factors such as service time, playing history, whether or not the team made the playoffs, writer bias due to location to other MVP candidates, size of the media markets the players play in, and historic ramifications of the stats in question.

The problem with sabermetrics people is that all those factors can't be quantified into a number they can put into a formula.

Yeah, once you step away from the safety of your computer screen, the real world doesn't always fit into a nice little equation.

For the love of FSM, can someone please post the definition of "boycott".

Or maybe come up with an equation that the dwellers can understand.

The only reason there is so much discussion on this topic is because it is so clear cut in Miggy's favour that the media needs to create a story. One day left in the season and barely anything has been decided. That's the real story.